Stephens v. Miller
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01570-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-04-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligent supervision - Duty to invitee Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, J., Myers, P.JJ., Irving, J., Chandler, J., Barnes, J., Ishee, J., Roberts, J. and Carlton, JJ Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-10-2006 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: TRIAL COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS. Case Number: 05-162AI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | LISA STEPHENS |
TOMMY DEXTER CADLE,
KENNETH EUGENE FLOYD |
|
|
| Appellee: | SHANNON MILLER | PAUL NATHAN JENKINS EMILY MOORE PARKER | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Negligent supervision - Duty to invitee |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lisa Stephens brought an action against Shannon Miller for injuries caused by Miller’s four-year-old daughter. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Miller, and Stephens appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stephens argues that the court erred when it granted summary judgment on her claim of negligent supervision and that summary judgment was not proper because Stephens was an invitee. For a claim for negligent supervision, a plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, proximate causation, and compensable damages. To establish the element of duty of care, a plaintiff must show that the parents failed to act as reasonably prudent parents based on notice of the child’s propensity to do harm. Stephens attempted to overcome Miller’s motion for summary judgment with an affidavit that claimed Miller told Stephens after the accident that Miller’s daughter likes to show people how the van door works (which hit Stephens while she was helping Miller load her children into the van). Stephens claimed that this established that Miller owed her a duty to supervise her daughter because she knew her daughter liked to close the van’s door. Stephens has failed to come forward with evidence that established Miller knew that her daughter had a propensity to do harm to others with the van door. This requirement cannot be established by merely showing that Miller’s daughter liked to close the door. Stephens was required to establish that Miller’s daughter had previously shut the van door on someone intentionally. Stephens’ argument that Miller owned her a duty because she was an invitee during the accident was never brought before the trial court and will not be considered on appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
